mersenneforum.org Msieve NFS minimum size
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2008-12-06, 20:54 #1 10metreh     Nov 2008 2·33·43 Posts Msieve NFS minimum size Why does msieve's NFS require the number to be at least 97 digits? SNFS is much faster than QS for lower levels than that. Even just postprocessing will switch to the quadratic sieve instead.
 2008-12-07, 02:26 #2 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 3·1,181 Posts Reports from users (admittedly old now) put the crossover point between msieve's QS and the GGNFS tools at 94-100 digits. Admittedly this sucks if you are completing a <97 digit job started by GGNFS. I can make the limit smaller, but I've already had a case of a public project try to use msieve for 20-digit NFS for instructional purposes. I'll put in logic that uses NFS for postprocessing even if the input is smaller than the bound. Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2008-12-07 at 02:28
2008-12-07, 09:34   #3
10metreh

Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp I've already had a case of a public project try to use msieve for 20-digit NFS for instructional purposes.
LOL

Just out of interest, how much slower is NFS than QS at 20 digits?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp I'll put in logic that uses NFS for postprocessing even if the input is smaller than the bound.
Do you mean in version 1.40?

BTW, I assume the crossover point you mentioned is for GNFS numbers. It's SNFS numbers that I posted this thread about.

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2008-12-07 at 09:37

 2008-12-07, 14:32 #4 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 354310 Posts Yes, the crossover point assumes GNFS. A 100-digit SNFS job with a correctly sized polynomial is around 10x faster than using QS. At the 20-digit size, the NFS code is all overhead. The 40-digit sample test in the GGNFS source takes something like 30 seconds, whereas QS finishes in milliseconds.
2008-12-07, 17:47   #5
10metreh

Nov 2008

91216 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp Yes, the crossover point assumes GNFS. A 100-digit SNFS job with a correctly sized polynomial is around 10x faster than using QS.
I was testing GGNFS's speed on googol+13's C94 when I found that msieve switched to QS. I thought msieve would have a lower minimum on the postprocessing.

Will you update in the next version?

 2008-12-14, 11:23 #6 10metreh     Nov 2008 1001000100102 Posts My question has still not had an answer...
 2008-12-14, 15:53 #7 jasonp Tribal Bullet     Oct 2004 3×1,181 Posts The answer is yes, this change is trivial to make. The next version could be out several months from now, though, which is why I wasn't in a hurry to answer.
2008-12-14, 16:23   #8
10metreh

Nov 2008

2×33×43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by jasonp The answer is yes, this change is trivial to make. The next version could be out several months from now, though, which is why I wasn't in a hurry to answer.
Argh, it looks like it'll be a long wait...

However, it's such an easy change to make that you should easily be able to do it now and then wait those few months for version 1.41.

2008-12-14, 17:43   #9
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

593710 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh Argh, it looks like it'll be a long wait... However, it's such an easy change to make that you should easily be able to do it now and then wait those few months for version 1.41.
i have attached a modified version of msieve 1.36 that doesnt reject lower number sizes which i compiled a while back on my athlon 64
Attached Files
 msieve.zip (161.9 KB, 157 views)

2008-12-14, 17:48   #10
10metreh

Nov 2008

2·33·43 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by henryzz msieve 1.36
Could we have a similar one for 1.39? The poly selection has changed, if I want to do a C96 GNFS, for example (that will probably crop up in my aliquot sequence).

Ther is also a cygwin dll needed.

Last fiddled with by 10metreh on 2008-12-14 at 17:50

2008-12-14, 18:00   #11
henryzz
Just call me Henry

"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

3·1,979 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by 10metreh Could we have a similar one for 1.39? The poly selection has changed, if I want to do a C96 GNFS, for example (that will probably crop up in my aliquot sequence). Ther is also a cygwin dll needed.
i will have a go at compiling it
i havent compiled anything like that on my newish pc so it might not be set up properly yet

i cant do anything about needing a couple of cygwin dlls to run it

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post bchaffin Factoring 24 2012-03-24 18:37 odin Hardware 15 2010-04-18 14:22 Kaboom PrimeNet 10 2009-04-17 14:58 jasong Information & Answers 1 2007-11-01 01:58 vaughan ElevenSmooth 5 2005-09-08 17:17

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:03.

Tue Nov 30 13:03:23 UTC 2021 up 130 days, 7:32, 0 users, load averages: 1.54, 1.40, 1.27